Court : Australia High Court
FRENCH CJ. Introduction 1. Caleb Corneloup, the second respondent, is the President of an incorporated association known as "Street Church". Samuel Corneloup, the third respondent, describes himself as an "expositor of the Gospel". Each has preached his religious beliefs and associated political beliefs in the City of Adelaide ("the City"). Each has done so without permission from the Corporation of the City of Adelaide ("the Council"), which was required by By-law No 4, entitled "Roads". The third respondent was convicted in the Magistrates Court of South Australia on 27 July 2010[1] and fined $250. His appeal against that conviction is pending in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The second and third respondents, Street Church and a number of other persons are the defendants to an injunction proceeding commenced by the Council in the Supreme Court. The Council sought to restrain those defendants from preaching, canvassing, haranguing or distributing printed material within the ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Australia High Court
FRENCH CJ AND GAGELER J. Introduction 1. The International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) ("the IAA") gives the force of law in Australia to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration adopted in 1985 and amended in 2006 ("the UNCITRAL Model Law") by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law ("UNCITRAL")[1]. In these reasons, "the Model Law" refers to the UNCITRAL Model Law as given the force of law in Australia. 2. An application to enforce an arbitral award under Art 35 of the Model Law is a "matter ... arising under [a law] made by the [Commonwealth] Parliament" within s 76(ii) of the Constitution. That is because rights in issue in the application depend on Art 35 of the Model Law for their recognition and enforcement and because the Model Law is a law made by the Commonwealth Parliament[2]. The Federal Court of Australia has original jurisdiction in a matter arising under a law made by the Commonwealth Parliament, defined under s 77(i) of the Constitu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Australia High Court
FRENCH CJ. Introduction 1. At the heart of the common law tradition is "a method of administering justice."[1] That method requires judges who are independent of government to preside over courts held in public in which each party has a full opportunity to present its own case and to meet the case against it. Antithetical to that tradition is the idea of a court, closed to the public, in which only one party, a government party, is present, and in which the judge is required by law to hear evidence and argument which neither the other party nor its legal representatives is allowed to hear. 2. The common law informs the interpretation of the Constitution and statutes made under it. It carries with it the history of the evolution of independent courts as the third branch of government and, with that history, the idea of a court, what is essential to that idea, and what is not. 3. The common law may be changed or abrogated by parliaments. The courts must apply the laws enacted by the parl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Australia High Court
FRENCH CJ, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ. Introduction 1. On 24 June 2008 the appellant was convicted after trial by a judge and jury in the District Court of New South Wales of three counts of supplying prohibited drugs contrary to s 25 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) ("the Drug Act"). The counts on which he was convicted[1] alleged respectively that he supplied a prohibited drug, 3,4-methylenedioxymethylamphetamine ("MDMA")[2] (count 1), that he supplied an amount not less than the commercial quantity[3] of MDMA (count 2) and that he supplied an amount not less than the large commercial quantity[4] of methylamphetamine (count 4). 2. The appellant was sentenced to a total of 14 years imprisonment, backdated to 16 August 2006, with a non-parole period of six years expiring on 15 August 2012. A Crown appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal against the inadequacy of the sentences, individually and collectively, was allowed on 16 August 2011[5]. The Court of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Australia High Court
1. FRENCH CJ, CRENNAN AND BELL JJ. Section 12(2) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ("the Liability Act") directs a court, when awarding damages relating to the death of or injury to a person, to disregard the amounts (if any) by which the claimant's gross weekly earnings would, but for the injury or death, have exceeded three times the amount of average weekly earnings at the date of the award ("the s 12(2) limitation"). The s 12(2) limitation applies to awards of damages for past and future economic loss due to the deprivation or impairment of earning capacity, for past economic loss due to loss of earnings, and for "the loss of expectation of financial support"[1]. The latter expression is apt to describe an award of damages under the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 (NSW) ("the Relatives Act"). The issue presented by the appeal is whether, in the case of an award of damages for the loss of expectation of financial support, the s 12(2) limitation is to be construed as applying ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Australia High Court
HEYDON J. 1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales ("the Court of Appeal"). The appellant is the Commissioner of Police ("the Commissioner"). David Grant Eaton ("the first respondent") is a probationary constable whom the Commissioner purportedly dismissed. The second respondent is the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales ("the Commission"). The appeal concerns the interrelationship between two statutes. One is the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) ("the IR Act"). The other is the Police Act 1990 (NSW) ("the Police Act"). 2. Section 84(1) of the IR Act provides: "If an employer dismisses an employee and the employee claims that the dismissal is harsh, unreasonable or unjust, the employee may apply to the Commission for the claim to be dealt with under this Part [ie Ch 2 Pt 6]." 3. Section 80 of the Police Act relevantly provides: "(1) The Commissioner may, subject to this Act and the regulations, appoint any per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Australia High Court
FRENCH CJ. Introduction 1. These appeals arise out of charges laid against the appellants, one of whom, Man Haron Monis, is said, in 2007, 2008 and 2009, to have written letters[1] to parents and relatives of soldiers killed on active service in Afghanistan which were critical of Australia's involvement in that country and reflected upon the part played in it by the deceased soldiers. The other appellant, Amirah Droudis, is said to have aided and abetted him in relation to a number of those letters. The appellants were charged under s 471.12 of the Criminal Code (Cth) ("the Code"), which prohibits the use of a postal or similar service in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, "offensive". 2. The Australian Constitution limits the power of parliaments to impose burdens on freedom of communication on government and political matters. No Australian parliament can validly enact a law which effectively burdens freedom of communication about those mat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Australia High Court
FRENCH CJ, HAYNE, BELL, GAGELER AND KEANE JJ. Introduction 1. This appeal concerns the construction and application of a provision of Pt 10.2 of the Criminal Code (Cth) ("the Code") which creates one of a number of offences under the general designation "money laundering". That provision, s 400.3(1), makes it an offence for a person to deal with money or other property of a value of or exceeding $1,000,000 if the person intends that the money or property will become an "instrument of crime". Property is an "instrument of crime" if it is used in the commission of, or used to facilitate the commission of, an indictable offence[1]. 2. In February 2005 the appellant effected a disposition of shares the beneficial interest in which was held by a company under his control, Barat Advisory Pty Ltd ("Barat Advisory"). The shares were in a publicly listed company, Admerex Ltd ("Admerex"). They were swapped, at the appellant's direction, for shares in a Swiss software development company, Temenos...
Tag this Judgment!